It’s hard to image that the state that gave us Governor Ronald Reagan could put up two candidates as thoroughly “RINO” as those now vying for the Golden State’s governor’s chair. But alas, that was a different California. On the hand one we have Meg Whitman, a woman so concerned with the political well-being of her state and country that she didn’t bother to vote for 20 years. She’s endorsed and contributed to Barbara Boxer, and gave a whopping $20,000 to Democrat Steve Westley’s statewide bids, and became a “huge fan” of former Obama Administration “Green Jobs Czar” and avowed 9/11 conspiracy theorist Van Jones on her global warming cruise. Her campaign is a top-down corporate entity that grinds out endless commercials and robocalls and produces fluffy radio spots about fixing California that makes her sound like the cookie-pushing Oracle from The Matrix. All fluff, all meaningless window-dressing to cover the naked ambition of a billionaire who figured: if Arnold can do it, why can’t I?

On the other hand, there’s Steve Poizner, who donated (in his wife’s name) $10,000 to Al Gore’s Florida recall effort, and the maximum contribution to John Kerry, whom Poizner supported over George W. Bush. Poizner is an opportunist pure and simple who in the past has trained his sights on California’s sacrosanct Prop. 13 – the property tax measure that keeps half the state from losing their homes. He was initially against Arizona’s new illegal immigration bill, then flipped like a flapjack when the polling numbers showed it to be a winning issue. Poizner is all opportunistic ambition too – one gets the sense that Poizner would rat on his mother if it would win him political points – he’s the Silicon Valley version of Joe Isuzu.

Under these circumstances one could envision themselves voting for one of the other Republicans on the ballot like railroad switchman Bill Chambers, not voting, or writing in any other candidate – living or otherwise. Still, not making a choice between Whitman and Poizner is just letting others make it for you – one of those two will be the GOP nominee. In times like these, when there’s no one to vote for, just remember that there’s some to vote against – the detestable leftist slug Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown. Jerry’s all grown up now, and rather than spending his days in a daze on the floor of his Spartan apartment, this time Jerry means business. Like all those aging hippies looking for one more chance to live the 60s again, Brown will take his job seriously this time and that means trouble for everyone who lives and somehow works in California. When coupled with the commies in California’s legislature Brown will be downright dangerous.

We know what you’re thinking – you’d rather be stabbed in the front by Brown than in the back by a RINO. Maybe it’s time to drive a stake into the heart of California – elect Brown, let the Democrats destroy it and hope for a Phoenix to emerge from the ashes. The problem is this – the RINOs will wound you, but the leftists will slit your throat, and if California goes down in flames, it isn’t coming back – ever. Better to stand and fight every step of the way; the liberals may take California, but we’ll make them pay for every inch of scorched ground.

Thus the calculus this year must be this – whoever can defeat Jerry Brown gets our vote. Unfortunately for Poizner, it’s a relatively easy equation, and most of it points to Meg Whitman. Although Poizner is doing his best to pander to conservatives here in the 11th hour, he hasn’t the conviction, the money, the organization, the political backing or even (sadly) the appeal that Meg Whitman is able to muster. In the end Whitman seems to have more personal political ability, more resources, and (hopefully) enough toughness to mount a winning campaign against Brown. In any event she’s got a better shot than Poizner. For those purely strategic reasons, if you can stomach it, Whitman’s our choice (yikes!).

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama repeatedly promised a new tone in Washington, an open, fair, and purpose-driven agenda with a bipartisan spirit. Instead, the tone is Washington has not only reached its lowest partisan ebb, perhaps ever, but the ‘legislative process’ under Harry Reid has deteriorated into naked bribery and ideological prostitution. While Mary Landreiu and Blanche Lincoln have showed themselves to be up for purchase, no member of the U.S. Senate has so drastically sold his soul and abandoned his principles as has Nebraska’s Ben Nelson.

Throughout the’ health care reform’ process, Nelson had been relatively up-front in voicing his objections to the bill, not merely because of his pro-life convictions, but because of the bill’s very nature. The most important insight into Nelson’s thinking emerged last week, following the effective failure of the so-called ‘public option’ along with the proposed Medicare buy-in for people as young as 55. In voicing his remaining concerns, Nelson put his finger not only on the great unknown – the ultimate cost of the program, but more fundamentally, the ultimate aim of the legislation:

“We don’t know what it’s going to cost. The second thing is I’m concerned that it’s– it’s the forerunner of single-payer, the ultimate singer single-payer plan, maybe even more directly than the public option.”

Nelson had repeatedly made clear his opposition to a single-payer system; one that would radically and fundamentally alter the relationship between the American people and their federal government. Far from unfounded, Nelson’s fears were right on target, for the proposed legislation is nothing short of the foundation upon which the greatest power-grab in American history will be built. President Barack Obama has spoken of his ultimate desire to bring about ‘redistributive change’ and has repeatedly voiced his support for a ‘single-payer system,’ and every Washington observer over the age of ten understands that once in place this legislation will be difficult to reverse and subject to alterations and expansion at the political whims of future Congresses – especially ones adept at never wasting a ‘good crisis’ in pushing through sweeping reform – perhaps something like the impending insolvency of Medicare in 2017.

Given these realities, and Nelson’s own adroit observation, his decision to reverse course and embrace this single-payer in sheep’s clothing for a price that Harry Reid was willing to pay is astonishing. Far from a new means of doing business in Washington, we have seen the convergence of the oldest and second oldest professions in ways impossible before the modern death of concepts like shame. Nelson knows his head won’t be on the platter in next year’s massacre of the Democrats at the polls – he’s not up for reelection until 2012 – while the honorable Blanche Lincoln will get hers, Nelson figures he’ll be off the hook thanks to American’s notoriously short attention span and a sweetheart deal for his own constituents.

He couldn’t be more wrong. Nelson will get his too.

Before that time comes however, there is a token of appreciation that all Americans can send Senator Nelson to remind him of how much we appreciate the federal takeover of our health care system that he allowed, despite his own convictions, and for a price. If Senator Nelson wishes to act the part of a prostitute, we encourage our fellow Americans to take a few moments out of their busy schedule to give him the chance by sending Senator Nelson a token of our appreciation for his newfound role: we recommend fishnet stockings, pantyhose and ladies panties, which can be sent to the senator at his D.C. office:

Senator Ben Nelson
720 Hart Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Enjoy the panties and fishnets senator, you’ve earned them. See you in 2012.

Amidst backslapping, vote tallying and questionable deal-making on Capitol Hill regarding the imminent passage of what is being called health care reform, few people, including constitutional scholars have weighed in. On the one hand, their reluctance to voice an opinion is understandable considering that the bill is something of an esoteric document. To date, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has yet to unveil this massive bill, that is, even if he’s finished writing it, in a process that all objective observers agree has been byzantine at best. Still, we can gather enough information from the broad outlines of the legislation to take a crack at its constitutionality.

As reported in the press, the bill will utilize the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to provide the legal basis for regulation in this area. This is hardly surprising since this grossly misconstrued provision is used to regulate almost every aspect of American life that is otherwise off limits to federal authority – the 10th Amendment notwithstanding. It is unclear precisely what approach will be taken here, but at a fundamental level it appears that the bill will require every American (and possibly non-citizen residents) to purchase, with their own money, a commodity (health insurance) from a private company, and penalize them with a tax if they do not. If this is indeed the bill’s basic structure, and that still remains a significant question, there can be little doubt that the product of what President Obama has called a “century-long struggle” is profoundly unconstitutional.

There is simply no basis in the United States Constitution that would provide the federal government with the power to force individuals to purchase commodities. While states have sufficient authority to mandate insurance based on their general legislative power, the federal government’s defined powers don’t provide for any legitimate mechanism to impose this burden. Moreover, the provision meant to enforce so-called universal coverage is being called a tax, but in reality only falls on those individuals who don’t purchase health insurance. Thus, what is deemed a tax is in fact a penalty, which runs directly afoul of the Bill of Attainder prohibition located in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.

Thus, the basic provisions of this bill don’t seem to pass constitutional muster on their face. While many liberals are rejoicing, and conservatives fretting about this massive government reordering or nearly 1/6 of the American economy, the only true accomplishment of this legislation may be as a jobs stimulus for constitutional lawyers who are sure to spend months and years fighting over its legality – a period in which Congressional majorities and even White House occupants may well change.

They called Ohio for the Messiah. This is why the background of our page is black.

Economic markets in turmoil, billions upon billions in public debt, a nation poised to elect a radical, anti-war socialist president with a Muslim background, and a population seemingly no longer interested in or concerned about the ongoing war against radical Islamic terror.  The climate could hardly be better for Al Qaeda, and with America’s famously fickle attention now focused on stock prices and financial bailouts, the time is nearly perfect for a major terrorist attack.

In Tuesday’s debate, John McCain noted that: “history shows us that nations that are strong militarily over time have to have a strong economy as well.” Such a notion is self-evidently true, and McCain is not the only man who recognizes the proportional relationship between America’s economic and military power. In December 2001 Osama bin Laden declared of America: “If their economy is destroyed, they will be busy with their own affairs rather than enslaving the weak peoples. It is very important to concentrate on hitting the U.S. economy through all possible means.” Less than a year later, his second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri similarly stated: “We will also aim to continue, by the permission of Allah, the destruction of the American economy.” There should be no doubt that Al Qaeda actively seeks to destroy the U.S. economy, and with it America’s military strength.

We can be certain that Al Qaeda and other radical organizations are closely following the U.S. election. The last thing they desire is for the battle-hardened, victory-committed John McCain to inherit the commander-in-chief chair from President George W. Bush, so a pre-election attack that would all but ensure a McCain victory seems unlikely. Yet, with just 26 days to go the election, the time is not very distant when conditions will be nearly optimal.

Come November 5, the economy will likely be in little better shape than it is today, America may have cast its lot with an anti-war political neophyte and defeatist Congress, the critical holiday retail shopping season will be starting, and with a new administration coming to power, Washington will be shuffling desks – a perfect climate of fear, distraction and uncertainty. It is the ideal moment to hit major economic interests in America and throughout the West, creating a panic that will further slam the American economy, deal a parting defeat to George W. Bush, and rattle the shaky new president-elect.

The threat is not limited to Al Qaeda either. A brazen Iran, a duplicitous North Korea, an emboldened Russia, even a militant China bent on the re-conquest of Taiwan could find the tactical reality of a tired and strained U.S. Armed Forces, a financially distressed U.S. economy and a heavily preoccupied American leadership irresistible.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 hit the American economy hard, ultimately costing hundreds of billions of dollars and prolonging the dot com bubble burst recovery period.  Now, amidst what many are calling the “greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression,” the effects of an economically-targeted terrorist attack could be truly devastating. It is a sober and worrying thought, and one that reminds us again how we have failed to learn the lessons of 9/11. For when America is distracted, when our resolve has lessened, when our domestic concerns overtake our concept of our mission in the world, it is then that our sworn enemies are most apt to strike us.

In appearance and vigor, the GOP convention in Minneapolis (St. Paul) seems lethargic, almost depressed compared to both the lively DNC convention in Denver, and past GOP conventions. Indeed, even Dole’s 1996 convention seemed more energetic than this GOP gathering. Of course, given the concurrence of Hurricane Gustav, the convention has been intentionally low-key, but even on what should have been the first full day of raucous electioneering, the Republican Convention hall seemed sadly complacent…as one observer noted, “what a sad little convention.”

The pathetic satellite address of President George W. Bush did little to change the mood.  Given the campaign the Democrats are running, it’s no surprise that President Bush wasn’t the evening’s highlight, but the seeming willingness to relegate the President to video comments from 900 miles distant was unbecoming. Despite his current unpopularity, George W. Bush is not a bad man, nor has he been a terrible president. True, his lack of communications skills have done grave damage to what is by any measure a historic presidency, and he hasn’t always held the line on fiscal responsibility, but whatever his faults, President Bush has kept his country safe after the tragedy of September 11, 2001. Bush has given us two outstanding Supreme Court justices, and has transformed the face of the Middle East. He is responsible for the liberation of 50 million people, the overthrow of one of the world’s most ruthless dictators, the establishment of the Arab world’s first democracy, and a host of other accomplishments that include the spread of liberty, the improved health of those suffering from diseases and poverty in places around the world (like Africa), and a lowering of the domestic tax burden that has resulted in a thriving economy for most of his term in office.

Bush hasn’t been perfect, but his party owed him the courtesy of a more respectful send-off, and a more confident and appreciative retrospective on the accomplishments of his administration. Moreover, the decision to produce and play another hackneyed montage on Ronald Reagan’s legacy, while failing to acknowledge, much less honor the accomplishments of the elder President Bush, who was present in the hall, is shameful. There is no denying the special place that Ronald Reagan occupies in the hearts of all conservatives, but it is unbecoming, unappreciative, and ultimately defeatist not to embrace the accomplishments of two GOP presidents – each with historic legacies.

The saving grace of the convention thus far has been the speech delivered by former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson. Thompson delivered an eloquent, heartfelt address that highlighted the heroism of John McCain, defended the honor of Sarah Palin, and skewered the Democrats with Reaganesque good humor and common sense. Many who saw Thompson last night regretted that his campaign had not shown similar vigor during the primaries. Still, Thompson’s was a welcome, robust defense of conservatism, and it served to energize a convention seemingly unsure of itself.

The closing address by Joe Lieberman was a respectful, heartfelt plea for unity and a genuine endorsement of a man who has served his country faithfully and with honor. Lieberman’s message will no doubt resonate with some still sitting on the proverbial fence, and reminded all of us of the common goal we must share – regardless of party – to do always what is best for America.

Forget for a moment all of the important issues in this campaign, and focus merely on the ubiquity of the campaign, and in particular that of the junior senator from Illinois. Every time I turn on the television, Obama is speaking…or being spoken about. Obama is on the front page of every newspaper, the radio is constantly replaying Obama ‘s speeches, and Obama’s face is plastered on more supermarket magazine covers than Brangelina. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, Obama, Obama, Obama …quite frankly, I’m sick of hearing about the man. Even if his ideas were revolutionary or particularly intellectual, which they’re not, the sheer doses of Obama are enough to drive you crazy.

It’s a factor the campaign should be concerned with as well. Despite wall-to-wall coverage of Obama, his relatively small lead in the polls suggests he’s getting little bounce for all that media bang. Indeed his single digit lead pales in comparison to the one held by the infinitely less charismatic Michael Dukakis in 1988, who enjoyed a 17-point advantage over George H.W. Bush. For all we’re hearing about Barack Obama, it appears voters are less than thrilled.

By contrast, McCain’s quiet tone, like an urban park, provides a refreshing, low-key respite. Far from suggesting a lack of vigor, McCain’s tone is respectful, thoughtful, and encourages listeners to consider the content of his speech, not merely the presentation. Indeed it is one of the principle beneficial byproducts of McCain’s relatively small warchest that his smaller media footprint has kept him from being overexposed.  While Obama is undeniable an effective speaker, there is something increasingly preachy about Obama’s tone as well as his rhetoric. His message of change, change, change, gives the impression that there’s little or nothing about the country he seeks to lead that he seems to like, approve of, or respect enough to want to retain.  On some level, Obama’s seeming rejection of all things (currently) American, is insulting. It is of course the nature of “progressivism” to want to change the way of things, but the constant drumbeat of change that emanates from the Obama camp combined with his omnipresence is a perfect recipe for saturating voters beyond their maximum level of positive engagement, and potentially pushing them to a level that could engender significant voter backlash.

It is hard to overestimate the amount of dislike harbored by the Left for George W. Bush, and even among independents and many Republicans, there is a definite sense of Bush fatigue. The respected Rasmussen poll placed the President’s approval rating at just 32% last week – the lowest ever recorded by Rasmussen, with a slumping economy putting the final nail in the popularity coffin of the Administration. 

Last week’s Republican defeat in Mississippi’s special election has Republican insiders sweating bullets.  If current trends hold, many are predicting a GOP rout unlike any in recent history. The traditional GOP brand – the one forged by Ronald Reagan is, at least in the near term, irrevocably broken.  At this point, the less the President says, the better.  Yet, in typical fashion, the retrograde Bush communications team managed to further damage GOP prospects in November with a controversial speech delivered to the Israeli Knesset, which was widely regarded as a thinly veiled attack on Barack Obama. The fact that what the President said was essentially true – that it’s sheer madness to have direct, unconditional, presidential-level talks with Islamic fanatics like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad- is beside the political point.  The Democrats are running an explicitly anti-Bush campaign, with Senator Obama adopting the canard that McCain is running for Bush’s third term. The President should stay as far away from the current race as possible, but inexplicably his own staff purportedly confirmed to journalists that Obama was the target of the remarks, placing Bush squarely in the middle of the current debate – right where the Democrats want him.

At this point one wonders if the President is not the victim of deliberate sabotage.  Forget for a moment the President’s own congenital inability to make simple declarative statements without error, and focus on a White House communications staff that has bungled nearly everything it has touched while steadfastly refusing to make the case for Bush’s intervention and progress in Iraq, the nearly seven years of uninterrupted economic growth, or any other achievement of the Administration’s. It is simply inconceivable that a modern White House communications team could be as thoroughly incompetent as the Bush team. A case in point would be the White House Office of Global Communications – which was developed in 2002 as a means of projecting an American point of view to countries around the world – an important need during a time when America was facing vocal opposition to its foreign policy.  That website hasn’t been updated since 2004.  Some message.

 While Bush remains personally likeable, the political reality is that he is tarnished beyond repair by a liberal slime machine that has pumped out unanswered, hysterical, Hitlerian, anti-Bush propaganda for years. Bush’s desire to “help” McCain by enmeshing himself in the current political race is like pouring gasoline on a fire. If GOP voters are reassuring themselves that Obama’s many disconcerting statements – and those of his wife and pastor – will be endlessly replayed to the detriment of his ambitions come the fall, they would do well to remember that every piece of footage depicting John McCain and George W. Bush together will be equally as visible. Starting of course with Bush’s over-the-top, he’s my guy, endorsement of McCain at the White House earlier this year – a moment that McCain is sure to regret. This is even more true considering the deep pockets that Obama is sure to have when compared to the anemic fundraising of the GOP.

 Of course the current political climate for Republicans can’t be blamed solely on the President.  Congressional Republicans have managed to so tarnish their reputation amongst voters by their continued unrestrained spending  (including the recent bloated farm bill), that they are utterly without credibility, and almost equally as incompetent as the White House in terms of communicating (much less implementing) a smaller-government vision for the country. Short of finding a way to release locusts on the population, GOP leaders have done all they can to vilify their own brand.  The result, as Representative Tom Davis so clearly put in his now famous memo, is a GOP disaster in the making.

The one bright spot of course is John McCain. Whatever criticisms have been leveled against McCain in the past, including from this blog, McCain is the one Republican that has enough standing, enough independence, enough consistency, to win in the fall. We are strangely fortunate that in a year when all things Republican are tinged with the smell of death, the maverick John McCain is the GOP standard bearer. Which is why is it critical that the McCain team avoids the obvious pitfalls that lie between here and victory in November. Chief among them of course would be the linking, in the popular psyche, of McCain and Bush, which though laughable given that Bush and McCain fought a bitter 2000 campaign against one another, is the unmistakable aim of the Democrats.

 Another pitfall is to avoid the “experience campaign” that just lost Hillary Clinton the Democratic nomination. McCain needs to make the case that Obama is naive and untested (not a hard case to make), but at the same time McCain must avoid being the status quo candidate. The more reformist McCain is this year, the better.

Whatever lingering doubts some may have about McCain, his policies, or his conservatism, get over it. John McCain needs and deserves our support. He is our only hope of staving off a GOP meltdown that will result in the strengthening of liberal margins in both houses and the election to the Oval Office of the most leftist senator in the U.S. Senate – a Ted Kennedy without experience. The result could be a massive increase in the size, scope and power of the federal government with increased taxes, explosive new entitlement spending, a scheduled surrender in Iraq, a dangerous and detrimental new foreign policy of negotiation with terrorists, and a Supreme Court and federal judiciary packed with interventionist liberal judges.  If McCain is to be burdened with the notion of the 3^rd Bush term, then it is important that voters be reminded that Obama is running for the 2^nd Carter term…and the results could be even more damaging than the first.

Feeble would be any words we might pen to commerate the passing of one so wise and witty. Let us just say thank you William F. Buckley, Jr., thank you, and rest in peace.